It is a random number. Since the goal is to scale from tens of connections to hundreds of connection, 330 seems like a good first step. Is there another number you'd prefer?
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Justin Pettit <[email protected]> wrote: > Can you comment on why 330 was chosen? > > --Justin > > >> On Feb 24, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Andy Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Raise the connection limit to allow larger number of concurrent >> ovsdb-server connections. Note, ovsdb-server may not perform well >> at the new limit. It is rather a prelude to further scaling tests and >> optimizations. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Zhou <[email protected]> >> >> --- >> This limit is currently hard coded. Should we make it a parameter >> for the caller to set? >> --- >> ovsdb/jsonrpc-server.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/ovsdb/jsonrpc-server.c b/ovsdb/jsonrpc-server.c >> index 1092ffa..91e24ee 100644 >> --- a/ovsdb/jsonrpc-server.c >> +++ b/ovsdb/jsonrpc-server.c >> @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ ovsdb_jsonrpc_server_create(void) >> { >> struct ovsdb_jsonrpc_server *server = xzalloc(sizeof *server); >> ovsdb_server_init(&server->up); >> - server->max_sessions = 64; >> + server->max_sessions = 330; >> shash_init(&server->remotes); >> return server; >> } >> -- >> 1.9.1 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
